MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975974357 · doi:10.1097/dcr.0000000000001485

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Laparoscopic and Open Right Hemicolectomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2019· article· en· W2975974357 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nivethan Vela, Lev D. Bubis, Laura Davis, Alyson Mahar, Erin Kennedy, Natalie G. Coburn

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Colon & Rectum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHealth Sciences CentreMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of ManitobaSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeColectomyRetrospective cohort studyColorectal cancerPopulationCohortOdds ratioSurgeryCancerLaparoscopic surgeryColorectal surgeryCohort studyLaparoscopyGeneral surgeryDatabaseInternal medicineAbdominal surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Open and laparoscopic resections for colon cancer have equivalent perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, there are little data concerning patient-reported outcomes in the early postdischarge period. OBJECTIVE: We examined patient-reported outcomes in the early postdischarge period for open and laparoscopic right hemicolectomy for colon cancer. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted using linked administrative healthcare databases in the province of Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic or open right hemicolectomy for colon cancer between January 2010 and December 2014 were identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry and physician billing data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the presence of moderate-to-severe symptom scores on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (≥4 of 10) within 6 weeks of hospital discharge after right hemicolectomy. RESULTS: A total of 1022 patients completed ≥1 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System survey within 6 weeks of surgery and were included in the study. Patients undergoing laparoscopic resection were more likely to have an urban residence, to have undergone planned resections, and to have had proportionally more stage 1 disease compared with patients undergoing open resection. On multivariable analyses, adjusting for patient demographics, cancer stage, and planned versus unplanned admission status, there were no differences in the adjusted odds of moderate-to-severe symptom scores between the laparoscopic and open approaches. LIMITATIONS: Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scores are not collected for inpatients and thus only represent outpatient postoperative visits. Scores were reported by 19% of all resections in the population, with a bias to patients treated at cancer centers, and therefore they are not fully representative of the general population of right hemicolectomy. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System is not a disease-specific tool and may not measure all relevant outcomes for patients undergoing right hemicolectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of the open or laparoscopic surgical technique was not associated with increased risk of elevated symptom burden in the early postdischarge period. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B27. REPORTE COMPARATIVO DE RESULTADOS INFORMADOS DE PACIENTES CON HEMICOLECTOMÍA DERECHA LAPAROSCÓPICA Y ABIERTA: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE RETROSPECTIVO: Las resecciones abiertas y laparoscópicas para el cáncer de colon, presentan semejante morbilidad y mortalidad perioperatoria. Sin embargo, en el período inicial posterior al alta, hay pocos datos sobre los resultados informados por los pacientes.Examinamos los resultados informados por los pacientes, en el período temprano posterior al alta, para hemicolectomía derecha abierta y laparoscópica en cáncer de colon.Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo.El estudio se realizó utilizando bases de datos administrativas de atención médica en la provincia de Ontario, Canadá.Pacientes sometidos a hemicolectomía derecha abierta o laparoscópica para cáncer de colon, de enero 2010 a diciembre 2014, se identificaron mediante el Registro de cáncer de Ontario y de los datos médicos de facturación.El resultado primario, después de la hemicolectomía derecha, fue la presencia de síntomas de moderados a graves en el Sistema de evaluación de síntomas de Edmonton (≥4 de cada 10) dentro de las seis semanas posteriores al alta hospitalaria.Un total de 1022 pacientes completaron al menos una encuesta del Sistema de evaluación de síntomas de Edmonton, dentro de las seis semanas de la cirugía y se incluyeron en el estudio. Los pacientes sometidos a resección laparoscópica fueron más propensos a residir en zona urbana, a resecciones planificadas y proporcionalmente más enfermedad en estadio 1; en comparación con los pacientes sometidos a resecciones abiertas. En los análisis multivariables, que se ajustaron a la demografía del paciente, al estadio del cáncer y del estado de ingreso planificado versus no planificado, no hubo diferencias en las probabilidades ajustadas de las puntuaciones de los síntomas moderados a severos entre el abordaje abierto o laparoscópico.Las puntuaciones del Sistema de evaluación de síntomas de Edmonton no se recopilan para pacientes hospitalizados y por lo tanto, solo representan las visitas postoperatorias de pacientes ambulatorios. Las puntuaciones informadas fueron del 19% de todas las resecciones en la población, con un sesgo en los pacientes tratados en los Centros de Cáncer y por lo tanto, no son totalmente representativos de la población general de hemicolectomía derecha. El Sistema de evaluación de síntomas de Edmonton no es una herramienta específica de la enfermedad y puede no medir todos los resultados relevantes para los pacientes que se someten a una hemicolectomía derecha.La recepción entre una técnica quirúrgica abierta o laparoscópica, no se asoció con un aumento del riesgo de síntomas en el período temprano posterior al alta. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B27.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the Colon & RectumSame topicColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207